Winners win assumes he gets a legislative victory with an unpopular cause. This isn’t a legislative victory, it’s a foreign policy change and it gets him hated.
Security 2AC
The card about colonialism isn’t very good, and is easily kritikable.
Use realism inevitable cards to say the alt prevents us from using a realist mindset if it is necessary.
Discourse of the 1AC isn’t just the words you say, but also the act that goes with it.
Need a stronger defense of reps. No evidence they have proven our reps wrong. We say there are some security problems, and they need to be dealt with. They’re the ones that are all yes/no, that there are no security threats.
Find cards that say environmental problems aren’t constructions of the state.
Also, on environment, most others assume one state working independently to secure itself from the environment, not international cooperation.
Instead of framework args, have a case outweigh args that defends yourself against “plan doesn’t matter” claims and root cause claims.
Everything is discourse, including the aff. Theirs is one of ignoring security, ours is one of addressing real issues.
It might have been our policy that made China paranoid, but now that it’s set in motion, it’s inevitable. Best example is terrorism-not like if we stop calling Al Qaeda terrorists they’ll suddenly start loving us.
If you can, go get the word “terror” out of your aff.
Historically, appeasement only encourages aggression. Neville Chamberlain.
Reverse Island Hopping 2AC
Make arg that grassroots movements can have an influence in Japan, but they won’t think they have international influence, that their protests affect American policy.
Say withdrawal inevitable, they will eventually kick out.
They’ve already had political victories, prime minister stepped down, Obama said he would withdraw.
Say turn, improved relations stops hopping.
Giving up Futenma increases credibility of our claims.
Say aff timeframe is faster.
All of your 1AC cards prove Japan wouldn’t want us to leave. They may think this base is useless, but the other ones aren’t.
START
Could say right now this is not a good midterm issue, but in the context of Obama being weak on foreign policy overall, it would become a larger issue.
Say the month-day instead of year.
Jew K
Two different versions.
One with A subpoint which is what their author says, and B is anti-Semitism should be rejected.
The other is more general. Have allowed anti-zionists a forum, allowed them into their args, and are fostering the movement.
The alt is to not participate in this anti-semitism. The alternative can be open, as in you can be colonialist, anti-colonialist, whatever so long as the aff is rejected.
Borders
What is the link? Why does the plan necessarily construct a border? Iraq is defined by borders. But they withdraw from an area and do nothing to reify it in another way.
Don’t spend much more time cutting cards, work on an explanation.
Stop the research on sovereignty.
BMD
That was a lot. Awesome.
Putting it together so “this is what I think you should read” would be helpful so people know what to read at a bare minimum, and then they can add extra cards. Shortened frontlines is a good idea because the tournament starts tomorrow.
Notes for disclosure:
Upload 1ACs tonight. They need to be timed.
START and energy bill stuff should be incorporated into the normal files so they can then be deleted.
August 6
Ish:
Security Answers are sufficient.
Environmental Security, Pan K, Chaloupka, Prolif K
Speeches Tomorrow:
Julia - CIL
Carlos - Borders, Iraq Colonialism
BMD - Vinay
Mid Terms DA - Jorge
Security 2AC - Ish
Island Hopping DA - Sullivan
Offshore Balancing - Suo
Ken Talking about the DA:
It's all dependent upon the story
Use the evidence to tell a story
Combining separate arguments into one card is beautiful but rarely the case
I. START - plan stops ratification
A. Obama needs PC to ratification
B. Will get ratified - it will be close but Obama can get it done
C. Plan kills political capital and ratification
D. Impact - relations, prolif.
If relations are key to crisis management but prevent the big war, you want to get to that kind of impact.
Things for extensions:
1. Now is critical to relations - Putin might be coming back into power.
2. It's a danger time because of no other arms control treaties
3. Prolif - Tipping Point
Won't be up for a vote until after the August break - that means it could make it to Greenhill.
Think about what pulling out of Japan would BE like.
Answers to aff answers:
GOP will block - they can get 8 vote/GOP fears the treaty - Both can be spun as "it will be tough" but he can still get it done. The best would be some distinguishing cards.
Plan popular
Winners win - Argue about popularity and how the plan would be perceived. Economic problems mean that he'll never gain from winners win. This isn't exactly your traditional PC DA, either.
Discussion of different affs and how they relate to our politics links - issues like Afghanistan, Iraq drag down his PC until they're resolved.
August 5
Schedule Change: Teams 9 and 4, your debate has been moved from tonight to Saturday.
Tomorrow, meet in Moore, and then go to debates. Be prepped in advance.
Aff side:
BMD
Substantially problem? Only spend 0.001% on BMD.
They think the best strat is the conditions CP.
US BMD doesn’t matter, Japan’s does because China is afraid they’ll be use for Taiwan. Also, advantages based off cooperation.
Japan
Futenma only has 8.5% of troops in Japan. Substantial?
Find a small percent to read in the 2AC.
Say look at the general worth of something, and this is important because we always talk to Japan about this. Make sure you have a piece of evidence to give to the judge at the end of the round.
Including all of Okinawa is less strategic because it then links to DAs.
The link card to the heg DA is about feeling we aren’t committed-leaving troops in Okinawa helps.
Rearm on the aff doesn’t make sense, no reason Japan would withdraw if they are the ones kicking us out.
Good reasons why Japan would say no to conditions, because Kahn is focused on the domestic credit crisis, and would be seen as flip-flop. He was elected due to economic policy.
Look into reasons why good to have alliance focus on global issues v. focusing on regional issues.
Due general work to see if Japan objects to conditioning.
Might be arg on conditioning that being manipulated by US affects elections.
South Korea
Nice 2AC time tradeoff on case. People keep reading util, which isn’t responsive.
Reform CPs are basically the status quo.
*massive fight ensues about the nature and utility of positive peace.
Vinay says that even if the aff says that the aff proves current methodologies are flawed and we should change, those flawed methodologies will inevitably be used even if they are bad, and we must thus work within them.
Aff says the neg’s impacts are biased toward larger magnitude and should thus be held questionable/ignored.
COIN
DADT doesn’t solve translators in the short term, and also doesn’t generate enough troops immediately.
JIRGA doesn’t solve heg because our troops are still there.
RRW impact is shady at best now, but they can work on it.
Their net benefit evidence on COIN light assumes withdrawal of all troops. However, there is better ev out there.
Right now, low amount of Taliban work with Al Qaeda, only a risk that keeping COIN there causes it.
Generics
Cap K-Will be run by RT frequently
Security K-Will be run by RT frequently
Pan K
Politics
Midterms
Neg
COIN
If they read a NATO advantage, could read consult NATO. However, they also could solve for the impact.
Enemy centric COIN is CT.
Resolve, compensation, and politics are possible strats.
COIN light links to politics. Flip flop is about the only differential link.
Public likes COIN troops when focused on human security.
CP builds wells instead of blowing up buildings.
In summary, do more work on the Afghanistan neg.
Colonialism Iraq
There answers to the Jew K were anti-semitism good.
The card that says we are going to leave bases and what not are from a crazy guy who says it’s because America is controlled by Jews.
They have a card from something like “Zunes.” His arg is as part of our colonizing, we destroyed the non-sectarian elements, such as the army and bureaucracy. Now, all the sectarian elements are pitted against each other, and if we withdraw, it would create a civil war. Worst case, 1AC proves they cause a civil war.
We don’t really have anything that refutes that this is a colonial act and this is a bad thing. Also, our view of the Middle East is racialized.
For 140 or nonsectarian, arguments about when the colonizer screws things up, withdrawing instead of fixing is bad. There’s a difference between intervening to fix their mistakes and fixing our mistakes.
Someone could just run heg to take it on.
Suo and Carlos are working on this neg.
One 2A to work on each of the affs
Caporal-BMD
Tatsuro-COIN
Drew-PROs
Sullivan-Futenma
Cap K-Malkovich
Security K-Ish
Other Ks-Ish and Malkovich divide up
All politics: Midterms, START, energy-Jorge+Aaron
Neg work
COIN-Jesse
BMD-Vinay
Drones-Jesse+Vinay
All gender stuff (SK Pros and crit Japan)-Cara and Ryan
Iraq-Priyanka+James
Iraq Colonialism-Rachel+Carlos
CIL-Julia
Okinawa Alliance-Sullivan
South Korean Exercises-Hari
Offshore Balancing-Suo
Finish Carlos’s work (impact defense)-Drew+Boyd
China-Suo
Contact each other to see what other labs’ answers are.
Everyone bring the answers they heard to politics tomorrow.
August 2
Come to lab with
clean jump drive
timed 1ac as a .doc on computer
all lab files backed up on your computer
neg strat rundown
Turkey TNW
Security K - link args: Iran link
or Prolif K (or can be a specific link to security)
in their syria/israel advantage there is a lot of threat rhetoric
T must include personnel - in the TNW neg
Consult NATO - all is specific to TNW
NATO Cohension NB
Condition CP - condition on Turkey afirming with Armenian protocol to open the borders
Internal politics - (but you'd have to go for case with that DA)
case - the advantage defense is frontlined.
could read turkey rearm - could turn the case.
Politics - link is GOP and dems fight over whether we should consult NATO about withdrawing from NATO.
Japan
okinawa critical
their aff is mostly an imperialist argument in Okinawa
CP - multi plank to have int'l standard for H Rts, revised SOFA, etc.
politics - GOP based?
Japan rearm
Fem IR - links about representations of women/victimization
(might be better on case)
Kan politics DA
lots of case - inevitability arg; they asked us
XT - can't get advantages off of discourse, only plan action
we should say the plan changes to a different type of colonialism that is more insidious.
redeployment - they'd be moved to guam or have the same sorts effect. (or ambiguously to other places)
misperception DA
Korean prolif
(not a general heg positiion, though)
JAPAN Policy - Save the Alliance
Environment -
we can answer with futenma isn't going anywhere takes out their advantage
Save the Alliance Adv -
Just withdraw from futenma CP (with an additional spot saying will not relocate somewhere else if they say environment)
Heg good DA with link futenma key forward deployment.
Alliance cooperation CP with tanks to do economic coop, bribe okinawans
any DA off of forward deployment
Japan rearm
Japan Compensation DA with F22
Security with environment K, etc
Japanese politics
S Korea policy
BQ & MO end naval exercies
BQ says key to 6 party talks -(but we think sanctions and a peace treaty are actually more important)
Chinese relations Adv
Peace Treaty CP
Deterence DA
naval exercises key to deter North Korea
North Korea is not really a threat - just posturing
also stops their general craziness.
Rearm DA
Cond CP - China pressure NK economically ; without condition NK could nuclearize; CP also solves for US China coop/rels
Politics Link -
case FL with barriers and issues with 6 party talks
T In - international waters
(see Ish's cash drill on T)
Off shore balancing
check out the S Korea stuff where there are answers to off-shore balancing - China not enough
North Korea won't attack
Condition CP from the S Korea neg
S Korean Prostitutes
redepoyment married CP (which means we get any mindset shift)
XT about mindset
S Korean internal politics - wahatc for econ K to v2l impact
similiar args to the Okinawa on the case (but a specific frontline)
Iraq policy
T must reduce from baseline (check out improved 2NC blocks!)
CP - Article 140 condition CP
reloaded with referendum good cards
CP to withdraw only if Iran stops nuke program (perhaps by getting inspectors)
NB is to turn Iran advantage - if we withdrew NK would prolif and move faster
NB could be politics -
politics links may be tough given so many public statements about withdrawal -
afghanistan DA
PMC shift DA (especially against colonialism DA)
Internal Middle East politics (see clash drills materials)
security K - specific links see demo debate stuff - ME as always unstable, the impact cards, etc
case: modular format depending on each advantage
turns on stability & Iran are quite strong (also credibility/softpower, etc)
CP - abandon SOFA and explicitly stay under certain conditions
NB case turns
Iraq CIL
courts/CIL - occupation explicitly by UN and SOFA
PIC out of reduction, SCT rule invasion is illegal on CIL
NB troop presence good
T no mandate of reduction - S Ct can't get read of occupation only invasion
Iraq Colonialism
Alternate causalities - state dept args from yesterday
PMC shift DA (state dpet has been explicit about this trade off)
Heg bad DA - overstretch now,
Cap K
T police = armed forces (because they may say get rid of state dept)
T its (so can't get rid of PMCs)
T not combat troops
Borders K with link of contruction as a separate state - create zones of who can speak.
also, your authors may have some unfavorable biases.
Afghanistan drones
T military, its as possessive. - cia is distinct, must be ownership under military
transparency CP -with a compensation program for pakistan
NB politics - drones are bipart
NB drones are good
Israel H rts link
politics - bipart
I Law defense and droves cards on case
security K - failed states (rhetoric of irresponsibility)
robo tech inevit and defense take out
T - gotta put a cap on numbers (the shift to airstrikes proves they're not reducing)
Surge
T reduce is not prevent a future decrease
surge/coin strats
CP increase the use of nonlethal weapons (funds research into the area)
so we stop the cars without blowing them up, etc
CP economic development
stimulate job growth - ppl want to be part of the govt
tons of resources there, so CP can regulate how it gets subcontracted out it could be quite good for the ppl
CP COIN light - stop surge and put coin in south and east afghanistan ("where [stuff] is going down" - says Jorge) plus then shift to do counter terror later
COIN needed to help stabilize the presence of each provencial govt - not about the central govt
NB politics and solve better
COIN key to stability, info for counter terrorism, key to pakistan
Politics links - petrateus nomination, it'd be a flip/flop, etc
lots of offense is about why the taliban bad - talban take over is a safe haven for al qaeda etc
security K -
laser compensation DA
Afghanistan drugs
T substantially - only about 1% of our investment in afghanistan
CP legalize opium for pharmaceutical company sales; convert troops into counter terror
give them a higher price than taliban
(because a parasite is killing the fields, moots and turns solvency arg)
NB more troops key to stability
offset CP - T reduce is a net reduce must be a cap
our CP shifts to counter terrorism
CP to economic development (above) - growing apricots mean they won't grow poppy
July 31
Kuwait
Either find more prior binding consultation cards, or help someone else out. Misperception
We need cards that say perceived loss of resolve makes other nations aggressive, but we aren’t less aggressive.
Plan as Japan or Korea to perceived reduction is resolve, makes them more aggressive in South China sea. Iraq Policy
Cut cards that say Iran won’t stop nuclearizing.
For T-whether or not plan will be a reduction is speculative based on their claim about SOFA. So they are only T by effect.
Read ev in the 1NC violation that talks about SOFA, and have a block to SOFA saying we meet.
Can we say certainty is not substantial because it is not quantifiable?
Their def justifies it’s ok to freeze the present because it might increase in the future. Gender
Make arg patriarchy will assure dominance/backlash. Any threat to patriarchy will be met with violence.
For the CP, read the it worked in Germany part.
Change CP text to only soldiers in Korea will be changed to married soldiers.
On case, make #2 plan would have no effect on prostitution in Korea. Still be prostitutes, demand is sufficient, price would decline to increase demand.
Throw in argument that if Korea is exploiting women this way anyways, they’d use them for sexual tourism. This goes well with the econ links in the 1AC. Surge
Reunderline so that it’s the minimal necessary to get the warrant out.
Maybe have a PIC out of nearly?
Ken and Nicole bet a diet coke they don’t keep nearly all in the plan text. And Ken does not get synonyms. Drones
Rule on CIL that they must disclose the drones.
A lot of the debate is that if we used CIL it would be self-executing. A treaty is not self-executing if it requires legislation to execute. A lot of people are afraid of the court because it’s like them writing laws.
And adopting treaties screws federalism.
Go look at the book called Robo War.
Say eliminating drones makes us less willing, hurts resolve. The reason we do it is because there’s not much risk when we just send in drones.
By their internal link, they stop us from using other robots. Are there other robots that are good?
The link is that abiding by I law puts more pressure on Israel’s policy, breaks up the alliance. SK Policy
In practice debates, try it once with the CP and once with the DA and case and see how it goes.
Case says China doesn’t want us there, could say we’ll concede CP if you concede China. TNW
For consult, say plan puts it on the table.
Paperless guide
Must have jump drive before 1AC compatible with everything.
Plannend card first, jumped cards after
Only jump cards you want
Mark cards, proactively jump them.
No obligation to have analytics in speech
Plan perms, and other things with texts should be in speech
Flashing isn’t prep
Don’t save speeches without prep
Rectifying a viewing computer isn’t prep
If a computer fails during speech, judge decides to deduct prep or other
Reasonable need to see ev before the speech
If teams don’t have computers, you must print it
Violation of these rules isn’t a voter, but should be brought up asap Paper guide
Mark cards as go
Analytics aren’t supposed to be written
Reasonable need to see ev is before prep
All ev is expected to be shared, return before speech
Reasonable building of podium isn’t taken from prep
Try to keep ev in piles
Make sure other team has ev they need
July 30
Suo 1NC
What does this CP do?
It changes the way we cooperate with Japan - the CP creates a shift where we have task forces for different policies in Japan, like high-speed rail. Ken thinks that the card doesn't spell out what should be done. The card isn't a mandate of what the USFG should do. How is politics a net benefit to the CP if the CP does a lot of things?
Purpose of the CP is to accept that they're pissed off about the base and solve the alliance advantage.
Think about the contradiction between the K and the DA.
The mix and match of evidence is a problem for the aff - neg should exploit it.
Credibility is an aff claim, Sully says, not a neg one.
The Futenma debate could resurge in the long term - the plan
is crucial to the long term stability of the alliance even if the CP solve sin the short term.
CP probably solves toxic waste and other issues.
We also have a politics DA with a strong link against this aff.
Carlos wants the alliance turns - everyone else thinks it's stupid.
Against other labs, we could pick out of Futenma alone.
We could go more in depth on the alliance - most treat it as either good/bad; there could be a way to get more diverse/nuanced.
What reasons do we have for Kon credibility bad?
Tax reform is probably good - but both sides of the debate are relatively strong. This may be impossible to prove - but if he got a big victory, he'd do TOO much and that would be bad. Carlos says Consult Japan is unrealistic.
Clash Drill - Condition on Article 140
Perm and condition the plan is better than perm do the CP - means you can't just change a word.
It only occurs in Kirkuk - not all over the country.
Turkey doesn't think they're bombing Iraq - they think it's Kurdistan.
The Futenma aff probably doesn’t trigger the link.
The Lowry argument sounds like a double turn.
Take a look at the grassroots movement DA and see if this makes sense. On the case we argue the aff is mixing and matching ev, reading card Japanese attitudes will hurt alliance because Japan is less happy, and then we read cards that say weakening alliance causes rearm, etc. But why would Japan prolif when we do what we want them to? If the US backoffs, that’s the weakening of the alliance.
If 1AC cards are true that Japan doesn’t see Futenma as an important part of the forward alliance, then don’t trigger the link.
Make distinction between public pressure and policy planners. But the policy planners want us out too. They’ve backed out before, but just because they don’t want to piss us off, not because they don’t want us out.
Do we have cards on the importance of this base militarily or that we’ve politically made it seem important? Gates has said this. Someone needs to do research on how China, North Korea, and high level officials would perceive pullout of Okinawa or Futenma.
Prostititutes
Probably are going to lose tf and prob, mag is where the focus needs to be.
Neg should focus on our impacts aren’t lies and that war causes more violence.
Bad idea to use a checklist of magnitude timeframe and probability.
Plan is an example of what the aff is asking to imagine the world as.
The focus should be on the negative argument is mistaken because it is based on the assumption that this is how people will respond, and to portray the world in that way is a rigged game. If we believe the world is masculine, we’ll continue to respond in a masculine way.
Cannot beat the link with “our nukes will deter.” That contradicts everything you are saying in the 1AC.
Emphasize troops are essential, nuclear guarantee doesn’t work without troops.
Talk about in 1NC how they cannot fiat attitude change. Cannot change thinking and must assume the world the way that it is.
When they say prostitution elsewhere, why not defend it as Korea is an example, and acceptance of our argument here would change our perspectives more broadly.
Even if the soldiers have stopped accepting the prostitutes, they have been offered. However, withdrawl of troops might stop their ability to prostitute women, but they’ll still have the same mindset that views women as tools.
Might throw in a prollif K card.
Turkish TNWs Allied Prolif
Don’t the Walt card interact with your advantage, as does prolif slow?
Say the argument before you say their cite.
Could be a card that says because Turkey wants to be in the eu, they won’t proliferate.
Cards from the Hellenic association probably not super legit
Take a look at the DDW file, they have some better cards there.
Instead of referencing their points by saying 2AC, say their.
Conditions CP Afghanistan
Problem with CP is that it’s unenforceable. They can agree to eliminate corruption, but that doesn’t mean that they will.
The destabilizing card is a little shady.
You need to read pressure key arguments, that they would answer yes to pressure.
The card about changing course also applies to the aff.
When does the conditioning take place?
This CP works against nation building good affs.
Could condition on Taliban talks. Want the Taliban to cut off ties with Al Qaeda, no safe haven.
Negotiations are the present system. With Petraeus, since the new leadership that’s almost all we’ve talked about.
Charles Olney is the person to ask for the Jirga stuff
If we’re negotiating with whoever is in control of the area, we can condition on yes from each area. Although jirga would be better.
Argument could be only our leveraging withdrawl could get them to put down their differences.
Link turning Afghanistan Heg advantage
Need the uniqueness, otherwise they could win that overstretch hurts forward deployments.
2AC needs something on resolve.
Aff should spin it that we always have capability, not always have the will. Say if we leave this unwinnable war we can forward deploy in the future. Gives us will to do other COIN missions, etc.
Regardless of whether the resolve link is in the 1NC, you should make that argument as an offensive argument. Political opposition, looking like a loser, etc.
As long as we’re engaged in a losing war, the public will always be reluctant to send more troops.
Running this with negotiations CP, it could be a net benefit because it shows we’re not just running away, it’s a strategy change.
July 28
Iraq K Aff Systemic Death Advantage Security K Advantage Islamic Racism Advantage – Perpetuation of the ME as all terrorists, etc White Man’s Burden Bad Advantage Colonialism Bad Advantage
Afghanistan Redeployment DA turns back the large majority of these affs Heg Bad DA could be good These affs withdraw military and police presence but potentially not ALL presence
PMCs do a horrible job on things like intelligence – it’s also really bad that we allow them to have our military secrets CPing to regulate PMCs would probably solve the aff PMCs free us up to be colonialist, they’re a product of the market
Clash Drill – Julia vs. Jack
Discussion of Malichi, Sadr, Kurds, etc Sadr’s Bandwagon argument The evidence is pretty good for the neg – the gridlock won’t break What’s the scenario for a civil war?
Isreal Bunker Busters Debate Do they have the technology or not?
Security K Discussion – it’s about difference Does difference exist in the world of the alternative? If so, do we fear it or what? What does this perm mean? How is the plan exclusive with the alternative? Diplomatic advantages probably do not link to this K We respond forcefully to threats – not passively. Is responding by negotiation consistent with the K at all?
What does this DA say? How does the link work – would the contractors have to be compensated? Congress and the DOD BOTH have to agree to shift both as a result of the plan – that doesn’t make sense A country specific link makes this scenario even better
July 27
Aff reports South Korea
MO lab has a NK advantage and Chinese modernization, and ours is prolif. BQ is naval exercises.
We withdraw all troops for the prostitute aff.
Take a look at Chinese modernization, the link level seems shady.
SK nuclear program aff is better than expected, but there is ev that says there is better ev on conditioning on China pressuring the nuclear program. There’s a card in the file called conditions CP, look at it. Forget other conditions CP in the allied prolif file.
China has to be careful about pressuring NK economically, because China will suffer the problems when refugees from NK spillover to China.
SK free trade, economic reform scenarios. SK economic reform will pass now, withdrawl hurts US credibility, that’s key to pass economic reform.
See if withdrawl leads to SK striking NK.
Useful against these cases, but mostly naval exercises, is that we need to take the hardline or NK will continue to press envelope. Sinmking ship example, if we don’t take action on those examples, NK will keep doing more, that prompts war. Also, China likes it if we keep it in control. China appreciates our deterrent there.
Sanction: if we withdraw, SK in compensation might ask us to have more sanctions on NK.
Politics links are solid. Substantial SK lobby, and a lot of congressmen fought in Korea, have nostalgic memories of their time there.
Figure out who would win the war. Turkey
1AC has two advantages.
Israel-Syrian relations. Says Turkey is best country to mediate, but doesn’t have cred because TNWs there, Turkey can’t say it wants no nuclear weapons in the middle east. Could advantage counterplan to US solving with Israel. Also, their evidence is about water wars, and says if the US invests in desalination it solves.
Iran-Turkey relations.
Turkish rearm DA turns the ev. There is a debate on this link, will want to prolif, but won’t have the advantage.
Strat is to advantage CP and then have Turkish internal politics.
Also have some evidence that it solves.
Israel is never going to give up Golan.
Water pipes for Israel have to go through Syria.
Go back and read all their sources on this. There is probably a patchwork of cards that are making different assumptions that don’t fit together.
Look at national defense university web page and do searches. The NDU puts on their web page masters theses that have been written at the university, and there are a bunch on TNWs.
There is a built in answer to consult on this case. NATO has kept the TNW issue off the table because it is divisive. Consulting on TNW is more likely to split the alliance than help, so rather than fight about it they just don’t talk about.
Russia has a huge number of TNWs in their western regions, they won’t give them up because they’re necessary to offset their conventional inferiority. Japan
BQ Okinawa policy aff. They withdraw all troops from Okinawa. Three scenarios for why US Japan relations good. One is checking regional threats, second scenario was key to East Asian democracy, third is warming.
Says US has engaged with China and NK in talks about alternative energy, but not Japan. This seems a little odd, we have weaker relations with China and NK.
PIC just withdraw from Futenma. Then talk about why Okinawa is key to heg, but Futenma is uniquely bad and solves.
In Japan, the public hates the bases. The ministry thinks the bases are needed because only then can we foster good Japan US alliance.
How does plan preserve alliance? Isn’t plan the end result of all the protests? Plan will eventually happen down road, pullout will hurt alliance.
Futenma Aff.
Best arg is a grassroots empowerment DA. Futenma has taken on a critical role in the alliance. US is just buckling to public opposition is bad, and empowers grassroots movements to take us out of all bases.
US has taken a strong stance on Futenma, backing out is bad for internat cred.
Stated reason for people there is NK stability. Korea researchers should look out for this.
On consult, treaty obviously doesn’t require prior binding consultation, as we just withdrew from our previous commitment.
If US Japan alliance depends on some troops being there for us to back them up, how is it possible to win impact to DA because Japan will say enough at some point.
Japanese rearm as a NB to withdrawing from Futenma instead of Okinawa.
Find out why they would prolif when they don’t want us there.
Chinese counterbalancing AFF
KL Lab.
Says we should withdraw, key to Sino US relations, makes our strategy counterbalancing.
No first use counterplan could solve.
Could we counterplan to stop supporting Taiwan? Aegis
Check and make sure all of the 1AC is up under the SS 1ACs.
Stop cooperation and development.
Advantages include
Japanese rearm, violates article 9 which collapses which is good.
East Asia, freaks out China and NK, they freak out. China will develop anti-satellite weapons because they’ll target satellites key to economy. Secondly, when China’s deterrent is threatened, China will change from their no first use impacts.
When we develop BMD in Japan, we’ll sell it in Europe. That freaks out Russia, who will withdraw from START.
We’ve had BMD for a while, but we’re developing block 2A missile defense, freaks out a lot of countries. If we stop building, other countries will react in kind.
Japan defense industrial base, part of article 9 is a restriction on arms exports. US is pressuring them to remove this provision so they can sell to Europe.
Japanese spending. Japanese education and training program is on the chopping block now, BMD directly trades off with other areas of the budget. Japan is trying to take leadership right now, loses cultural leveraging.
Japanese science spending, that’s key to Japanese econ, key to both global econ and US. Also stem cell bank is about to be cut which causes immortality.
Text is The US should end all joint missile defense and deployment programs with Japan.
Domestic restraints on militarization, only BMD would break them down.
CP to have Japan stop cooperation? Would probably hurt the alliance.
Why does the development have to be done in Japan? Because they’re the only willing partner. The Japanese technology is already in the block 2A missiles, only way to do this.
Neg strats include Relations DA, emboldens NK, some sort of trilateral alliance with Australia.
Block 2A is causing recently heightened tensions.
We don’t get rid of block 1A, but it’s half done, we leave it like that, it’s ineffective.
Look at if it’s “substantial” to stop the development and cooperation while leaving block 1A, other troops, etc. There is some ev about it beind important to change our strategy there. MO Japan Aff
US Japan alliance aff with many alliance.
Just withdraw from Okinawa.
Most of the BQ strat will work, just cut some extra case specific cards on this. Iraq
Many policy and critical versions.
Policy versions adhere to SOFA and withdraw according to timetable.
One aff has SC rule it violated CIL. It says internat law good, preemptive war bad.
CP to rule on CIL and don’t withdraw from Iraq.
US-Iran advantage. Withdrawl would pacify Iran, only reason they’re trying to nuclearize is because of Iraq.
Various credibility advantages that increase heg. Soft power. Prevents overstretch. Helps credibility by sticking with timeline.
Iraqi stability advantages. Increase stability because we remove ourselves as a target, and would force Iraq to govern themselves. Most of these end in Iraq civil war/instability.
KL claims democracy promotion.
Article 140 conditions counterplan works. Says key to solve sectarian violence. Other net benefit could be Iraqi politics.
Other counterplans could be to leave some troops in different regions or capacities.
A lot of troops we have there now are going to be in advisory and training roles. You could probably make a credible claim that if you are to withdraw those troops, we’d start using PMCs in those training and advisory roles, which is bad.
If we were to withdraw, would cause Iran to fill in and pressure Iraq.
On stability, if we don’t condition, just results in more instability.
A lot are not reversal causal. Don’t speak to withdrawing now would stop whatever damage the occupation caused.
If the referendum would pass, would screw over Turkey and Iran. Clash drills
Aaron-Aff on condition CP for Afghanistan
Jessie-Neg on condition CP for Afghanistan
Ryan-Japan Rearm (sort out the sides)
Jack-Japan Rearm (sort out sides)
Hari-Aff Turkey allied prolif
Drew-Neg Turkey allied prolif
Vinay-Heg
Boyd-Heg
Japan Politics
Uniqueness probably overwhelms link.
Link turning is extremely difficult.
Must figure out how to impact turn.
Make a uniqueness wall. Make sure the wall has warrants as a way of distinguishing out his arguments, reason to decide for the neg. Each set of arguments is a quick evaluation of his arguments. Each card should have the warrant emphasized.
· Politics Link work to be done – maybe midterms An aff section of this file should be put out · A K of Prolif might be something to do – Is Terror Talk in the file? · There was a Gender Group – Fem IR, etc · The compiled file was pretty solid · Is there an Israel argument in Allied Prolif? There might be in Middle East – but it sounds like there’s not anything in that, either. · We need stuff on Israel, China, Russia · PMC Shift · Redeployment DAs · Guam has turtles, or something · Iran DA – attacking them is dumb, international support for sanctions could be better? · One person could go through the Allied Prolif generic and make it good · Condition withdrawal on China ending the North Korea nuclear program Assignments: · Security – Jesse, Rachel, Jon · Red Spread/Israel – Tats · OBJ – Hari · Drones – Aron · Domestic Compensation – Malkovich · Japan – Sullivan, Suo, Vinay · South Korea Policy – Cara · Turkey – Ish · Afghanistan – Jorge, James, Drew · Iraq – Malkovich, Ryan, Julia · Kuwait – Jack · Gender – Priyanka · Impact Extensions – Carlos
OBJ Stuff
PMCs could be a case turn to this aff Forward Deployment Good Taxes are bad Carlos is doing AT: deontology
Gender (All the Prostitutes and Answers to the Gender K)
Gotta have answers to our ev is biased Feminist protections of prostitutes Answers to Moon and third world feminism These women are doing this out of poverty and choice – not because they’re forced to The South Korean government is forcing many of the women into poverty Maybe answers to Gender Language and/or Brinksmanship is Gendered, etc Rachel vs. Priyanka – clash drill smackdown
Drones What does this aff do Is it substantial Which of these drones are good? We should PIC out of one of them Carlos wants a PIC out of a word – UAV’s are the term of art
Security K Prolif K – Jesse doesn’t know what it is. It’s basically just an orientalism argument Pos Peace, Terror Talk, Pan K, Chaloupka All of these should only be spent one or two nights on – just quick files to be put out with aff answers Carlos vs. James – clash drill
Tatsuro Israel, Russia, China relations Red Spread DA Isreal – Bunker Busters that could own Iran Clash Drill – Tats vs. Jorge Compensation Clash Drill: Malkovich vs. Julia
Clash Drill – Iraq Politics DA – Ish vs. Suo Clash Drill – Japan Politics DA – Sullivan vs. Cara
Afghanistan What neg positions exist against this aff Can the strategy in the country work/should we give it a chance? CP – change the way COIN is used/what the troops do/train the Afghan national army We need to have a very strong defense of presence and number of troops Taliban DA – Negotiations
Day 6 July 24 -
Future T
This debate is silly. Only read it against an aff that acts far in the future/
Could apply to theoretical Layne aff that acts then, but probably won’t apply.
Declaration/Secret T
Make argument that it’s normal means-expand upon the congress changing mind when they change their votes, president does the same thing.
Examine the definitions-need substantially? What does it modify? Not resolved
Personnel T
Good example with Iraq, that they wouldn’t just leave all their weapons behind.
What does it mean to be quantifiable? Make a clear distinction.
Reduction on face T
Reduce the presence in Okinawa would increase presence elsewhere.
Can be argued that this is only fx un t.
Also is evidence that indicates it will be reduced elsewhere.
Substantially T
Breadth over year and depth in round is good.
Nukes are largest deterrence, so substantial.
Use deterrence as the definition to narrow it down more, other definitions too broad to allow you to be substantial.
Make argument that substantially as a percent presumes it is quantifiable.
Ish/Drew
Discussion of presence and the definition of the word in
DA to the Neg Interp: No ground troops or naval troops
T Permutations: Are They Legit?
Priyanka/Sullivan
Is this definition intuitive or not? Military study concludes combat troops aren't presence.
Extra-T to change peacekeeping troops to combat troops?
Carlos/Julia
Does the aff meet? Probably.
Jesse/Suo
Presence discussion - how is it felt
Aron/Ryan
What do PMCs do? How does that make them topical?
Day 4 July 22-
See 1AC section of the wiki to download all 1ACs discussed today.
Friday night and Saturday afternoon lab-Meet in Moore 150 (same building as Filene)
Meets 6:30-10:00 tomorrow
1:30-4:30 on Saturday
Prostitution 1AC
Examine combining advantages-remove the prostitution in general is bad, but say in this instance it’s bad because SK are forcing them in this instance, and while women could make this choice in general, but they’re being forced to make this choice in general
Avoid the tag “Prostitution degrades women as human beings”
There is the intersection, commodofication is the result of race, class, and gender.
Must withdraw all troops, regulation doesn’t solve cards prove. Also, SK feels it’s a required thing to keep troops happy, only way to tell them no means no is with this.
Combine inherency and solvency
What’s the difference between intersectionality and the first advantage?
Intersectionality helps with beating Ks, card about viewing through different lenses
Write it as awareness of colonial overtones provides intersectional perspective. If we make colonialism a focus, split it into two advantages.
Beginnings of the security K should be thrown in here.
Make sure you can describe it as the root of the problem is our presence there, because it helps avoid DA turns the case problems later.
Cut cards on feminist perspectives. Search “strategic essentialism” in the case list, there’s a card that helps it
Look at possible third world feminism args
Afghanistan 1AC
Karzai and instability advantages are very similar.
How can say decentralization good? Morgan makes distinction between violent fragmentation and compartmentalization. Decentralization is more like federalism.
On his own, nobody respects Karzai. He’s insane. When we stop supporting him, he loses his power
This strategy will inevitably fail. Better thing to do is to stop supporting Karzai, and let the local controls become more important. That’s the best hope for stability in this nation.
Decentralization inevitable, but only peaceful if we stop COIN.
Why can’t have COIN adapted to decentralization? Because COIN is all about making elections happen, centralized government. They’re already listening to their local leaders now, we’re just trying to force them to listen to Karzai as well
Look into NATO. Why can’t NATO claim success by saying we’ve won the war?
Need to make sure there are answers to consult NATO if there is a NATO advantage.
There is evidence about out of area operations splitting the alliance. Also is evidence saying Afghanistan is the litmus test for more out of area operations for NATO.
Find out how NATO feels about the plan.
Also look into nation building bad/colonialism. There are cards about social engineering.
There are also lots of PMCs there, possible security problems because of terrorism and groups working for the CIA, take a look.
Japan Policy 1AC
Shorten up the tags.
Some public opposition to Okinawa now. The problem is if the protests spillover to the rest of the protests in Japan, specifically Futenman, the politicians will have to listen to the public. Problem is that they would push the US out of Japan as a whole, we just withdraw from a small section.
Change the aff to make it a pol cap aff. Political capital low now, plan gives him pc, allows him to pass financial reform.
Consultation is the status quo. Plan is result of squo talks, they asked us to leave, we’ve been saying maybe, but now we are withdrawing.
Setting up all of the formal stuff for consultation and taking that time would piss Japan off.
Basically: Find case specific answers to consult.
Japan Critical 1AC
Apply the same level of specificity to this aff.
Why have the whole security scenario? Makes it impossible to make the Brooks/Wolfworth scenario that heg is inevitable.
Because we have a securitized notion of Japan, we ignore the environment, mistreat women. Centered around security being the cause.
Need to make it more specific to Japan. Possibly something about WWII? It has symbolic value because of the bomb, etc.
Search Okinawa in Project Muse. Find some stuff more specific about Japanese securitization.
Get ready to answer the prolif K and allied prolif.
Kuwait 1AC
Find impacts. Oil prices and middle eastern terrorism are possibilities.
Look at oil, Kuwait trying to get away from petrodollars
US impedes Kuwait’s ability to be a democracy in the region.
Also possible plan to prevent Iraqi soldiers from going to Iraq.
Clash Drills Tomorrow
Cannot be combat troops-Iraq not T
Sullivan-Aff
Priyanka-Neg
Must include personnel-Aegis not T
Zach-aff
Jack-neg
In=physically within-Naval exercises in international water
Drew-aff
Ish-neg
Nuclear umbrella-not a military presence, not physical
Michael-aff
Jessie-neg
Must be more than status quo reduction-must be faster than 2011 in Iraq
Julia-aff
Carlos-neg
Future action not T-must reduce now
Rachel-Aff
Jorge-Neg
Has to on face reduce, not ban particular thing
Cara-aff
Jonathan-Neg
Military contractors
Aaron-Aff
Ryan-Neg
Substantially-BMD or Naval
Hari-Aff
James-Neg
Must be a formal action-President can’t just think it
Vinay-aff on resolved is formal policy
Tatsuro-neg on resolved is formal policy
Format is neg aff neg. No 1AR. Disclose tonight.
1. Email Campbell Haynes your 1NC, 2AC, and 2NC
2. Every meet for dinner tomorrow at 5, entire lab at the hop
Meet at Kemeny Holdeman tomorrow, right outside Novack
South Korea
Drawdowns in past mean no more, and the US will inevitably get involved. Prostitution could do it. The preemptive war article is good, but assumes Bush, and it’s only one advantage. It says that if we withdraw we’ll have a credible threat of war, and then we’ll be able to have a threat that will force North Korea to denuclearize. Kennelly from the American Enterprise Institute writes this-cut this stuff for the neg.
Maybe instead do withdrawing makes NK more comfortable, and then less likely to be aggressive, more willing to talk, and help the transition to new leadership.
Could have an aff the includes the nuclear umbrella. Go to college wiki and look under Dartmouth, Mich State, and others to find cites for no first use.
Other aff: we sent ships into yellow sea to train SK, but the Chinese don’t like this. However, these might be one time exercises, end before Greenhill.
Kritikal side of things. SK is a unique intersection between colonialism and patriarchy, has prostitution for troops. Need an answer to attempts to regulate soldiers instead of withdraw-object fiat, ineffective regulations. Any econ cards helps with K offense on comodifying women.
BMD
Joint development between US and Japan because Japanese constitution prevents Japan from doing it alone. Fear a country has of missile defense system is that it makes possessor of missile defense invulnerable in first strike situation. Search word presence/present within what is going on here to make it be topical.
Possible neg arg is that military presence reduction requires people, and people are there. Also examine, cooperation with Japan is cooperation in Japan.
Possible interp is that presence=talks/other forms of cooperation. Args against it include it would explode limits by allowing us to change all of our advisory roles.
Do lots of contextual T work, scour T files produced at other institutes. Find something that comes up with the distinction between military presence and military forces.
Iraq
Inherency problem, SOFA agreement, Biden just got back from Iraq a couple of weeks ago and said we’re definitely sticking to the agreement regardless of stability.
Date limit searches, find people saying anything in aff’s direction.
Also start thinking about advantages from ambiguity.
Kuwait
You can’t hear people screaming because of the generators.
They already have progressive women’s rights, not much for fem.
Look into strategic importance of Kuwait and combining that with colonialism.
Also, Kuwait doesn’t want withdrawal of Iraq troops, because it would force refugees into Kuwait and would also free up our troops to go into Kuwait.
Our operations in Yemen are based in Kuwait. Look at possible people could be assassinated.
Also look into the democratization stuff, about US possibly interfering with new democracy.
PMCs
Bad because of idea of privatizing military, possibly capitalist.
Good way of allowing the US to avoid responsibility.
We’ve used PMCs in Iraq to avoid criticism over death tolls.
Privatizing security is bad, creates rich poor gap on who has security.
Look into how much of PMC market we are. If we can withdraw from these 6 countries and then put PMCs out of business, we’ll be able to change the nature of PMCs.
PMCs in violation of Geneva convention because they’re technically civilians, but they are also combatants.
Possibly have Court rule on CIL, argue spillover.
Examine distinction between the people fighting and the people just driving trucks.
Afghanistan
Heg-Overstretch, COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy is based off here.
Corruption-we pay people to allow us to travel, funds warlords.
If we remove just counterinsurgency, our counterterror will fail as well, otherwise we won’t have the intelligence necessary for counterterror because counterinsurgency is in the cities where they gather information.
But ev goes other way too, impedes stability, alienates the people needed to have successful counterterror. Also destroys karzai government, which is bad.
Need to examine the legitimacy and necessity of getting data from counterinsurgency.
Counterinsurgency is about stability, does more than shoot people. Counterterror is about chasing terrorists.
Make sure there is an answer to reducing rather than changing.
Day 1 July 19
Kuwait has to be done - it's on the list.
Carlos: Pull out the troops currently stationed at the DMZ. Disad's aren't unique because the US is moving troops around and the advantages could be North-South reconciliation. Plan would remove troops entirely. CP to move them elsewhere in the country may/may not solve - that's an evidence question.
Tats: Pull out counterinsurgency troops (hearts and minds people). Afghani instability, the way we're trying to establish a government, is bad. Nation building in Afghanistan bad.
Zach: Pull Afghan counter narcotic troops. Not doing that drives them into the Taliban.
Julia: Iraq withdrawal as per the Security Agreement. Iraq-U.S. Relations advantage. Necessary to maintain good U.S.-Iraq relations. Withdrawal also good for Iraq stability. Could also be key to an offshore balancing strategy. Is this topical?
Michael: Stop ballistic missile cooperation with Japan. We have troops in Japan and ships with BMD in Japan. Advantages: North Korea, China is mad too. An Alliance Restructuring Advantage is possible. Does South Korea have it too - Yes?
What does removing troops from Kuwait do? Carlos wants a genealogy? Jack has done Kuwait work before - Kuwait can be a lilypad for the rest of the ME. It's key to both land and air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Turkey - If we're doing it, it seems TNWs are the ways to go. Carlos thinks that the US trains a secret police in Turkey.
Nicole - Possible critical aff is the Okinawa base in Japan. Vinay - same aff, but with an Alliance credibility advantage.
James - Remove the nuke aircraft carrier from Japan - relations advantages. James is right.
Carlos - shun Turkey. This aff doesn't work because we can't topically stop trading with them. Maybe this is a neg file.
Korea - 4, Afghan COIN - 7, Iraq - 6, Japan BMD - 6, Turkey - 1, Japan K - 2, Japan Nuke Ship - 1.
One Choice:
Korea - 4, Afghan COIN - 4, Japan BMD - 2, Iraq - 6, Kuwait - 3. PMCs - 1.
Kuwait - Cara and James.
PMCs - Julia.
Okinawa - Jesse and Drew.
Korea - Carlos, Rachel, Ish, Zach.
Afghanistan - Tats, Aaron, Jorge, Hari, Jonathan.
Japan BMD - Vinay and Michael.
Iraq - Jack, Priyanka, Sullivan, and Ryan.
Afghanistan
How does being nice to them create instability?
Supporting Karzai leads to instability. Nation building helps Karzai. Our presence is pointless. Counter terror CAN work without counter insurgency. Advantages - Heg, Improved Stability, Terrorism Advantage?
Iraq
Get out of the country. Flip flop? Very case specific politics work could be done. DA - US troops there protect the Kurds. Shia have power now - if we pulled out it might lead to Shia authoritarianism. Ken thinks advantages might be week.
Korea
North Korea is crazy. Mines exist - can we demine? We want to remove troops from Korea. What does Kim Jong Il want? Where is his power going to go? Could the plan be to end the nuclear guarantee instead of removing troops? Carlos has an interesting idea about hardliners. Lots of ev about us promising not to mess with North Korea.
Table of Contents
August 7
Winners win assumes he gets a legislative victory with an unpopular cause. This isn’t a legislative victory, it’s a foreign policy change and it gets him hated.
Security 2AC
The card about colonialism isn’t very good, and is easily kritikable.
Use realism inevitable cards to say the alt prevents us from using a realist mindset if it is necessary.
Discourse of the 1AC isn’t just the words you say, but also the act that goes with it.
Need a stronger defense of reps. No evidence they have proven our reps wrong. We say there are some security problems, and they need to be dealt with. They’re the ones that are all yes/no, that there are no security threats.
Find cards that say environmental problems aren’t constructions of the state.
Also, on environment, most others assume one state working independently to secure itself from the environment, not international cooperation.
Instead of framework args, have a case outweigh args that defends yourself against “plan doesn’t matter” claims and root cause claims.
Everything is discourse, including the aff. Theirs is one of ignoring security, ours is one of addressing real issues.
It might have been our policy that made China paranoid, but now that it’s set in motion, it’s inevitable. Best example is terrorism-not like if we stop calling Al Qaeda terrorists they’ll suddenly start loving us.
If you can, go get the word “terror” out of your aff.
Historically, appeasement only encourages aggression. Neville Chamberlain.
Reverse Island Hopping 2AC
Make arg that grassroots movements can have an influence in Japan, but they won’t think they have international influence, that their protests affect American policy.
Say withdrawal inevitable, they will eventually kick out.
They’ve already had political victories, prime minister stepped down, Obama said he would withdraw.
Say turn, improved relations stops hopping.
Giving up Futenma increases credibility of our claims.
Say aff timeframe is faster.
All of your 1AC cards prove Japan wouldn’t want us to leave. They may think this base is useless, but the other ones aren’t.
START
Could say right now this is not a good midterm issue, but in the context of Obama being weak on foreign policy overall, it would become a larger issue.
Say the month-day instead of year.
Jew K
Two different versions.
One with A subpoint which is what their author says, and B is anti-Semitism should be rejected.
The other is more general. Have allowed anti-zionists a forum, allowed them into their args, and are fostering the movement.
The alt is to not participate in this anti-semitism. The alternative can be open, as in you can be colonialist, anti-colonialist, whatever so long as the aff is rejected.
Borders
What is the link? Why does the plan necessarily construct a border? Iraq is defined by borders. But they withdraw from an area and do nothing to reify it in another way.
Don’t spend much more time cutting cards, work on an explanation.
Stop the research on sovereignty.
BMD
That was a lot. Awesome.
Putting it together so “this is what I think you should read” would be helpful so people know what to read at a bare minimum, and then they can add extra cards. Shortened frontlines is a good idea because the tournament starts tomorrow.
Notes for disclosure:
Upload 1ACs tonight. They need to be timed.
START and energy bill stuff should be incorporated into the normal files so they can then be deleted.
August 6
Ish:
Security Answers are sufficient.
Environmental Security, Pan K, Chaloupka, Prolif K
Speeches Tomorrow:
Julia - CIL
Carlos - Borders, Iraq Colonialism
BMD - Vinay
Mid Terms DA - Jorge
Security 2AC - Ish
Island Hopping DA - Sullivan
Offshore Balancing - Suo
Ken Talking about the DA:
It's all dependent upon the story
Use the evidence to tell a story
Combining separate arguments into one card is beautiful but rarely the case
I. START - plan stops ratification
A. Obama needs PC to ratification
B. Will get ratified - it will be close but Obama can get it done
C. Plan kills political capital and ratification
D. Impact - relations, prolif.
If relations are key to crisis management but prevent the big war, you want to get to that kind of impact.
Things for extensions:
1. Now is critical to relations - Putin might be coming back into power.
2. It's a danger time because of no other arms control treaties
3. Prolif - Tipping Point
Won't be up for a vote until after the August break - that means it could make it to Greenhill.
Think about what pulling out of Japan would BE like.
Answers to aff answers:
GOP will block - they can get 8 vote/GOP fears the treaty - Both can be spun as "it will be tough" but he can still get it done. The best would be some distinguishing cards.
Plan popular
Winners win - Argue about popularity and how the plan would be perceived. Economic problems mean that he'll never gain from winners win. This isn't exactly your traditional PC DA, either.
Discussion of different affs and how they relate to our politics links - issues like Afghanistan, Iraq drag down his PC until they're resolved.
August 5
Schedule Change: Teams 9 and 4, your debate has been moved from tonight to Saturday.
Tomorrow, meet in Moore, and then go to debates. Be prepped in advance.
Aff side:
BMD
Substantially problem? Only spend 0.001% on BMD.
They think the best strat is the conditions CP.
US BMD doesn’t matter, Japan’s does because China is afraid they’ll be use for Taiwan. Also, advantages based off cooperation.
Japan
Futenma only has 8.5% of troops in Japan. Substantial?
Find a small percent to read in the 2AC.
Say look at the general worth of something, and this is important because we always talk to Japan about this. Make sure you have a piece of evidence to give to the judge at the end of the round.
Including all of Okinawa is less strategic because it then links to DAs.
The link card to the heg DA is about feeling we aren’t committed-leaving troops in Okinawa helps.
Rearm on the aff doesn’t make sense, no reason Japan would withdraw if they are the ones kicking us out.
Good reasons why Japan would say no to conditions, because Kahn is focused on the domestic credit crisis, and would be seen as flip-flop. He was elected due to economic policy.
Look into reasons why good to have alliance focus on global issues v. focusing on regional issues.
Due general work to see if Japan objects to conditioning.
Might be arg on conditioning that being manipulated by US affects elections.
South Korea
Nice 2AC time tradeoff on case. People keep reading util, which isn’t responsive.
Reform CPs are basically the status quo.
*massive fight ensues about the nature and utility of positive peace.
Vinay says that even if the aff says that the aff proves current methodologies are flawed and we should change, those flawed methodologies will inevitably be used even if they are bad, and we must thus work within them.
Aff says the neg’s impacts are biased toward larger magnitude and should thus be held questionable/ignored.
COIN
DADT doesn’t solve translators in the short term, and also doesn’t generate enough troops immediately.
JIRGA doesn’t solve heg because our troops are still there.
RRW impact is shady at best now, but they can work on it.
Their net benefit evidence on COIN light assumes withdrawal of all troops. However, there is better ev out there.
Right now, low amount of Taliban work with Al Qaeda, only a risk that keeping COIN there causes it.
Generics
Cap K-Will be run by RT frequently
Security K-Will be run by RT frequently
Pan K
Politics
Midterms
Neg
COIN
If they read a NATO advantage, could read consult NATO. However, they also could solve for the impact.
Enemy centric COIN is CT.
Resolve, compensation, and politics are possible strats.
COIN light links to politics. Flip flop is about the only differential link.
Public likes COIN troops when focused on human security.
CP builds wells instead of blowing up buildings.
In summary, do more work on the Afghanistan neg.
Colonialism Iraq
There answers to the Jew K were anti-semitism good.
The card that says we are going to leave bases and what not are from a crazy guy who says it’s because America is controlled by Jews.
They have a card from something like “Zunes.” His arg is as part of our colonizing, we destroyed the non-sectarian elements, such as the army and bureaucracy. Now, all the sectarian elements are pitted against each other, and if we withdraw, it would create a civil war. Worst case, 1AC proves they cause a civil war.
We don’t really have anything that refutes that this is a colonial act and this is a bad thing. Also, our view of the Middle East is racialized.
For 140 or nonsectarian, arguments about when the colonizer screws things up, withdrawing instead of fixing is bad. There’s a difference between intervening to fix their mistakes and fixing our mistakes.
Someone could just run heg to take it on.
Suo and Carlos are working on this neg.
One 2A to work on each of the affs
Caporal-BMD
Tatsuro-COIN
Drew-PROs
Sullivan-Futenma
Cap K-Malkovich
Security K-Ish
Other Ks-Ish and Malkovich divide up
All politics: Midterms, START, energy-Jorge+Aaron
Neg work
COIN-Jesse
BMD-Vinay
Drones-Jesse+Vinay
All gender stuff (SK Pros and crit Japan)-Cara and Ryan
Iraq-Priyanka+James
Iraq Colonialism-Rachel+Carlos
CIL-Julia
Okinawa Alliance-Sullivan
South Korean Exercises-Hari
Offshore Balancing-Suo
Finish Carlos’s work (impact defense)-Drew+Boyd
China-Suo
Contact each other to see what other labs’ answers are.
Everyone bring the answers they heard to politics tomorrow.
August 2
Come to lab withclean jump drive
timed 1ac as a .doc on computer
all lab files backed up on your computer
neg strat rundown
Turkey TNW
Security K - link args: Iran linkor Prolif K (or can be a specific link to security)
in their syria/israel advantage there is a lot of threat rhetoric
T must include personnel - in the TNW neg
Consult NATO - all is specific to TNW
NATO Cohension NB
Condition CP - condition on Turkey afirming with Armenian protocol to open the borders
Internal politics - (but you'd have to go for case with that DA)
case - the advantage defense is frontlined.
could read turkey rearm - could turn the case.
Politics - link is GOP and dems fight over whether we should consult NATO about withdrawing from NATO.
Japan
okinawa critical
their aff is mostly an imperialist argument in OkinawaCP - multi plank to have int'l standard for H Rts, revised SOFA, etc.
politics - GOP based?
Japan rearm
Fem IR - links about representations of women/victimization
(might be better on case)
Kan politics DA
lots of case - inevitability arg; they asked us
XT - can't get advantages off of discourse, only plan action
we should say the plan changes to a different type of colonialism that is more insidious.
redeployment - they'd be moved to guam or have the same sorts effect. (or ambiguously to other places)
misperception DA
Korean prolif
(not a general heg positiion, though)
JAPAN Policy - Save the Alliance
Environment -
we can answer with futenma isn't going anywhere takes out their advantage
Save the Alliance Adv -
Just withdraw from futenma CP (with an additional spot saying will not relocate somewhere else if they say environment)
Heg good DA with link futenma key forward deployment.
Alliance cooperation CP with tanks to do economic coop, bribe okinawans
any DA off of forward deployment
Japan rearm
Japan Compensation DA with F22
Security with environment K, etc
Japanese politics
S Korea policy
BQ & MO end naval exerciesBQ says key to 6 party talks -(but we think sanctions and a peace treaty are actually more important)
Chinese relations Adv
Peace Treaty CP
Deterence DA
naval exercises key to deter North Korea
North Korea is not really a threat - just posturing
also stops their general craziness.
Rearm DA
Cond CP - China pressure NK economically ; without condition NK could nuclearize; CP also solves for US China coop/rels
Politics Link -
case FL with barriers and issues with 6 party talks
T In - international waters
(see Ish's cash drill on T)
Off shore balancing
check out the S Korea stuff where there are answers to off-shore balancing - China not enoughNorth Korea won't attack
Condition CP from the S Korea neg
S Korean Prostitutes
redepoyment married CP (which means we get any mindset shift)XT about mindset
S Korean internal politics - wahatc for econ K to v2l impact
similiar args to the Okinawa on the case (but a specific frontline)
Iraq policy
T must reduce from baseline (check out improved 2NC blocks!)
CP - Article 140 condition CP
reloaded with referendum good cards
CP to withdraw only if Iran stops nuke program (perhaps by getting inspectors)
NB is to turn Iran advantage - if we withdrew NK would prolif and move faster
NB could be politics -
politics links may be tough given so many public statements about withdrawal -
afghanistan DA
PMC shift DA (especially against colonialism DA)
Internal Middle East politics (see clash drills materials)
security K - specific links see demo debate stuff - ME as always unstable, the impact cards, etc
case: modular format depending on each advantage
turns on stability & Iran are quite strong (also credibility/softpower, etc)
CP - abandon SOFA and explicitly stay under certain conditions
NB case turns
Iraq CIL
courts/CIL - occupation explicitly by UN and SOFAPIC out of reduction, SCT rule invasion is illegal on CIL
NB troop presence good
T no mandate of reduction - S Ct can't get read of occupation only invasion
Iraq Colonialism
Alternate causalities - state dept args from yesterday
PMC shift DA (state dpet has been explicit about this trade off)
Heg bad DA - overstretch now,
Cap K
T police = armed forces (because they may say get rid of state dept)
T its (so can't get rid of PMCs)
T not combat troops
Borders K with link of contruction as a separate state - create zones of who can speak.
also, your authors may have some unfavorable biases.Afghanistan drones
T military, its as possessive. - cia is distinct, must be ownership under militarytransparency CP -with a compensation program for pakistan
NB politics - drones are bipart
NB drones are good
Israel H rts link
politics - bipart
I Law defense and droves cards on case
security K - failed states (rhetoric of irresponsibility)
robo tech inevit and defense take out
T - gotta put a cap on numbers (the shift to airstrikes proves they're not reducing)
Surge
T reduce is not prevent a future decreasesurge/coin strats
CP increase the use of nonlethal weapons (funds research into the area)
so we stop the cars without blowing them up, etc
CP economic development
stimulate job growth - ppl want to be part of the govt
tons of resources there, so CP can regulate how it gets subcontracted out it could be quite good for the ppl
CP COIN light - stop surge and put coin in south and east afghanistan ("where [stuff] is going down" - says Jorge) plus then shift to do counter terror later
COIN needed to help stabilize the presence of each provencial govt - not about the central govt
NB politics and solve better
COIN key to stability, info for counter terrorism, key to pakistan
Politics links - petrateus nomination, it'd be a flip/flop, etc
lots of offense is about why the taliban bad - talban take over is a safe haven for al qaeda etc
security K -
laser compensation DA
Afghanistan drugs
T substantially - only about 1% of our investment in afghanistan
CP legalize opium for pharmaceutical company sales; convert troops into counter terror
give them a higher price than taliban
(because a parasite is killing the fields, moots and turns solvency arg)
NB more troops key to stability
offset CP - T reduce is a net reduce must be a cap
our CP shifts to counter terrorism
CP to economic development (above) - growing apricots mean they won't grow poppy
July 31
Kuwait
Either find more prior binding consultation cards, or help someone else out.
Misperception
We need cards that say perceived loss of resolve makes other nations aggressive, but we aren’t less aggressive.
Plan as Japan or Korea to perceived reduction is resolve, makes them more aggressive in South China sea.
Iraq Policy
Cut cards that say Iran won’t stop nuclearizing.
For T-whether or not plan will be a reduction is speculative based on their claim about SOFA. So they are only T by effect.
Read ev in the 1NC violation that talks about SOFA, and have a block to SOFA saying we meet.
Can we say certainty is not substantial because it is not quantifiable?
Their def justifies it’s ok to freeze the present because it might increase in the future.
Gender
Make arg patriarchy will assure dominance/backlash. Any threat to patriarchy will be met with violence.
For the CP, read the it worked in Germany part.
Change CP text to only soldiers in Korea will be changed to married soldiers.
On case, make #2 plan would have no effect on prostitution in Korea. Still be prostitutes, demand is sufficient, price would decline to increase demand.
Throw in argument that if Korea is exploiting women this way anyways, they’d use them for sexual tourism. This goes well with the econ links in the 1AC.
Surge
Reunderline so that it’s the minimal necessary to get the warrant out.
Maybe have a PIC out of nearly?
Ken and Nicole bet a diet coke they don’t keep nearly all in the plan text. And Ken does not get synonyms.
Drones
Rule on CIL that they must disclose the drones.
A lot of the debate is that if we used CIL it would be self-executing. A treaty is not self-executing if it requires legislation to execute. A lot of people are afraid of the court because it’s like them writing laws.
And adopting treaties screws federalism.
Go look at the book called Robo War.
Say eliminating drones makes us less willing, hurts resolve. The reason we do it is because there’s not much risk when we just send in drones.
By their internal link, they stop us from using other robots. Are there other robots that are good?
The link is that abiding by I law puts more pressure on Israel’s policy, breaks up the alliance.
SK Policy
In practice debates, try it once with the CP and once with the DA and case and see how it goes.
Case says China doesn’t want us there, could say we’ll concede CP if you concede China.
TNW
For consult, say plan puts it on the table.
Paperless guideMust have jump drive before 1AC compatible with everything.
Plannend card first, jumped cards after
Only jump cards you want
Mark cards, proactively jump them.
No obligation to have analytics in speech
Plan perms, and other things with texts should be in speech
Flashing isn’t prep
Don’t save speeches without prep
Rectifying a viewing computer isn’t prep
If a computer fails during speech, judge decides to deduct prep or other
Reasonable need to see ev before the speech
If teams don’t have computers, you must print it
Violation of these rules isn’t a voter, but should be brought up asap
Paper guide
Mark cards as go
Analytics aren’t supposed to be written
Reasonable need to see ev is before prep
All ev is expected to be shared, return before speech
Reasonable building of podium isn’t taken from prep
Try to keep ev in piles
Make sure other team has ev they need
July 30
Suo 1NCWhat does this CP do?
It changes the way we cooperate with Japan - the CP creates a shift where we have task forces for different policies in Japan, like high-speed rail. Ken thinks that the card doesn't spell out what should be done. The card isn't a mandate of what the USFG should do. How is politics a net benefit to the CP if the CP does a lot of things?
Purpose of the CP is to accept that they're pissed off about the base and solve the alliance advantage.
Think about the contradiction between the K and the DA.
The mix and match of evidence is a problem for the aff - neg should exploit it.
Credibility is an aff claim, Sully says, not a neg one.
The Futenma debate could resurge in the long term - the plan
is crucial to the long term stability of the alliance even if the CP solve sin the short term.
CP probably solves toxic waste and other issues.
We also have a politics DA with a strong link against this aff.
Carlos wants the alliance turns - everyone else thinks it's stupid.
Against other labs, we could pick out of Futenma alone.
We could go more in depth on the alliance - most treat it as either good/bad; there could be a way to get more diverse/nuanced.
What reasons do we have for Kon credibility bad?
Tax reform is probably good - but both sides of the debate are relatively strong. This may be impossible to prove - but if he got a big victory, he'd do TOO much and that would be bad. Carlos says Consult Japan is unrealistic.
Clash Drill - Condition on Article 140
Perm and condition the plan is better than perm do the CP - means you can't just change a word.
It only occurs in Kirkuk - not all over the country.
Turkey doesn't think they're bombing Iraq - they think it's Kurdistan.
Tomorrow:
Ish: TNW 1NC
Julia, Zach, Ryan: Iraq 1NC's
Jorge: COIN
Jack: Kuwait
July 29
Debate tomorrow over Afghanistan 140 provisions
Practice debates are at 3:30
Make sure you disclose
Japan Rearm Clash Drills
The Futenma aff probably doesn’t trigger the link.
The Lowry argument sounds like a double turn.
Take a look at the grassroots movement DA and see if this makes sense. On the case we argue the aff is mixing and matching ev, reading card Japanese attitudes will hurt alliance because Japan is less happy, and then we read cards that say weakening alliance causes rearm, etc. But why would Japan prolif when we do what we want them to? If the US backoffs, that’s the weakening of the alliance.
If 1AC cards are true that Japan doesn’t see Futenma as an important part of the forward alliance, then don’t trigger the link.
Make distinction between public pressure and policy planners. But the policy planners want us out too. They’ve backed out before, but just because they don’t want to piss us off, not because they don’t want us out.
Do we have cards on the importance of this base militarily or that we’ve politically made it seem important? Gates has said this. Someone needs to do research on how China, North Korea, and high level officials would perceive pullout of Okinawa or Futenma.
Prostititutes
Probably are going to lose tf and prob, mag is where the focus needs to be.
Neg should focus on our impacts aren’t lies and that war causes more violence.
Bad idea to use a checklist of magnitude timeframe and probability.
Plan is an example of what the aff is asking to imagine the world as.
The focus should be on the negative argument is mistaken because it is based on the assumption that this is how people will respond, and to portray the world in that way is a rigged game. If we believe the world is masculine, we’ll continue to respond in a masculine way.
Cannot beat the link with “our nukes will deter.” That contradicts everything you are saying in the 1AC.
Emphasize troops are essential, nuclear guarantee doesn’t work without troops.
Talk about in 1NC how they cannot fiat attitude change. Cannot change thinking and must assume the world the way that it is.
When they say prostitution elsewhere, why not defend it as Korea is an example, and acceptance of our argument here would change our perspectives more broadly.
Even if the soldiers have stopped accepting the prostitutes, they have been offered. However, withdrawl of troops might stop their ability to prostitute women, but they’ll still have the same mindset that views women as tools.
Might throw in a prollif K card.
Turkish TNWs Allied Prolif
Don’t the Walt card interact with your advantage, as does prolif slow?
Say the argument before you say their cite.
Could be a card that says because Turkey wants to be in the eu, they won’t proliferate.
Cards from the Hellenic association probably not super legit
Take a look at the DDW file, they have some better cards there.
Instead of referencing their points by saying 2AC, say their.
Conditions CP Afghanistan
Problem with CP is that it’s unenforceable. They can agree to eliminate corruption, but that doesn’t mean that they will.
The destabilizing card is a little shady.
You need to read pressure key arguments, that they would answer yes to pressure.
The card about changing course also applies to the aff.
When does the conditioning take place?
This CP works against nation building good affs.
Could condition on Taliban talks. Want the Taliban to cut off ties with Al Qaeda, no safe haven.
Negotiations are the present system. With Petraeus, since the new leadership that’s almost all we’ve talked about.
Charles Olney is the person to ask for the Jirga stuff
If we’re negotiating with whoever is in control of the area, we can condition on yes from each area. Although jirga would be better.
Argument could be only our leveraging withdrawl could get them to put down their differences.
Link turning Afghanistan Heg advantage
Need the uniqueness, otherwise they could win that overstretch hurts forward deployments.
2AC needs something on resolve.
Aff should spin it that we always have capability, not always have the will. Say if we leave this unwinnable war we can forward deploy in the future. Gives us will to do other COIN missions, etc.
Regardless of whether the resolve link is in the 1NC, you should make that argument as an offensive argument. Political opposition, looking like a loser, etc.
As long as we’re engaged in a losing war, the public will always be reluctant to send more troops.
Running this with negotiations CP, it could be a net benefit because it shows we’re not just running away, it’s a strategy change.
July 28
Iraq K AffSystemic Death Advantage
Security K Advantage
Islamic Racism Advantage – Perpetuation of the ME as all terrorists, etc
White Man’s Burden Bad Advantage
Colonialism Bad Advantage
Afghanistan Redeployment DA turns back the large majority of these affs
Heg Bad DA could be good
These affs withdraw military and police presence but potentially not ALL presence
PMCs do a horrible job on things like intelligence – it’s also really bad that we allow them to have our military secrets
CPing to regulate PMCs would probably solve the aff
PMCs free us up to be colonialist, they’re a product of the market
Clash Drill – Julia vs. Jack
Discussion of Malichi, Sadr, Kurds, etc
Sadr’s Bandwagon argument
The evidence is pretty good for the neg – the gridlock won’t break
What’s the scenario for a civil war?
Isreal Bunker Busters Debate
Do they have the technology or not?
Security K Discussion – it’s about difference
Does difference exist in the world of the alternative? If so, do we fear it or what?
What does this perm mean?
How is the plan exclusive with the alternative?
Diplomatic advantages probably do not link to this K
We respond forcefully to threats – not passively.
Is responding by negotiation consistent with the K at all?
What does this DA say?
How does the link work – would the contractors have to be compensated?
Congress and the DOD BOTH have to agree to shift both as a result of the plan – that doesn’t make sense
A country specific link makes this scenario even better
July 27
Aff reports
South Korea
MO lab has a NK advantage and Chinese modernization, and ours is prolif. BQ is naval exercises.
We withdraw all troops for the prostitute aff.
Take a look at Chinese modernization, the link level seems shady.
SK nuclear program aff is better than expected, but there is ev that says there is better ev on conditioning on China pressuring the nuclear program. There’s a card in the file called conditions CP, look at it. Forget other conditions CP in the allied prolif file.
China has to be careful about pressuring NK economically, because China will suffer the problems when refugees from NK spillover to China.
SK free trade, economic reform scenarios. SK economic reform will pass now, withdrawl hurts US credibility, that’s key to pass economic reform.
See if withdrawl leads to SK striking NK.
Useful against these cases, but mostly naval exercises, is that we need to take the hardline or NK will continue to press envelope. Sinmking ship example, if we don’t take action on those examples, NK will keep doing more, that prompts war. Also, China likes it if we keep it in control. China appreciates our deterrent there.
Sanction: if we withdraw, SK in compensation might ask us to have more sanctions on NK.
Politics links are solid. Substantial SK lobby, and a lot of congressmen fought in Korea, have nostalgic memories of their time there.
Figure out who would win the war.
Turkey
1AC has two advantages.
Israel-Syrian relations. Says Turkey is best country to mediate, but doesn’t have cred because TNWs there, Turkey can’t say it wants no nuclear weapons in the middle east. Could advantage counterplan to US solving with Israel. Also, their evidence is about water wars, and says if the US invests in desalination it solves.
Iran-Turkey relations.
Turkish rearm DA turns the ev. There is a debate on this link, will want to prolif, but won’t have the advantage.
Strat is to advantage CP and then have Turkish internal politics.
Also have some evidence that it solves.
Israel is never going to give up Golan.
Water pipes for Israel have to go through Syria.
Go back and read all their sources on this. There is probably a patchwork of cards that are making different assumptions that don’t fit together.
Look at national defense university web page and do searches. The NDU puts on their web page masters theses that have been written at the university, and there are a bunch on TNWs.
There is a built in answer to consult on this case. NATO has kept the TNW issue off the table because it is divisive. Consulting on TNW is more likely to split the alliance than help, so rather than fight about it they just don’t talk about.
Russia has a huge number of TNWs in their western regions, they won’t give them up because they’re necessary to offset their conventional inferiority.
Japan
BQ Okinawa policy aff. They withdraw all troops from Okinawa. Three scenarios for why US Japan relations good. One is checking regional threats, second scenario was key to East Asian democracy, third is warming.
Says US has engaged with China and NK in talks about alternative energy, but not Japan. This seems a little odd, we have weaker relations with China and NK.
PIC just withdraw from Futenma. Then talk about why Okinawa is key to heg, but Futenma is uniquely bad and solves.
In Japan, the public hates the bases. The ministry thinks the bases are needed because only then can we foster good Japan US alliance.
How does plan preserve alliance? Isn’t plan the end result of all the protests? Plan will eventually happen down road, pullout will hurt alliance.
Futenma Aff.
Best arg is a grassroots empowerment DA. Futenma has taken on a critical role in the alliance. US is just buckling to public opposition is bad, and empowers grassroots movements to take us out of all bases.
US has taken a strong stance on Futenma, backing out is bad for internat cred.
Stated reason for people there is NK stability. Korea researchers should look out for this.
On consult, treaty obviously doesn’t require prior binding consultation, as we just withdrew from our previous commitment.
If US Japan alliance depends on some troops being there for us to back them up, how is it possible to win impact to DA because Japan will say enough at some point.
Japanese rearm as a NB to withdrawing from Futenma instead of Okinawa.
Find out why they would prolif when they don’t want us there.
Chinese counterbalancing AFF
KL Lab.
Says we should withdraw, key to Sino US relations, makes our strategy counterbalancing.
No first use counterplan could solve.
Could we counterplan to stop supporting Taiwan?
Aegis
Check and make sure all of the 1AC is up under the SS 1ACs.
Stop cooperation and development.
Advantages include
Japanese rearm, violates article 9 which collapses which is good.
East Asia, freaks out China and NK, they freak out. China will develop anti-satellite weapons because they’ll target satellites key to economy. Secondly, when China’s deterrent is threatened, China will change from their no first use impacts.
When we develop BMD in Japan, we’ll sell it in Europe. That freaks out Russia, who will withdraw from START.
We’ve had BMD for a while, but we’re developing block 2A missile defense, freaks out a lot of countries. If we stop building, other countries will react in kind.
Japan defense industrial base, part of article 9 is a restriction on arms exports. US is pressuring them to remove this provision so they can sell to Europe.
Japanese spending. Japanese education and training program is on the chopping block now, BMD directly trades off with other areas of the budget. Japan is trying to take leadership right now, loses cultural leveraging.
Japanese science spending, that’s key to Japanese econ, key to both global econ and US. Also stem cell bank is about to be cut which causes immortality.
Text is The US should end all joint missile defense and deployment programs with Japan.
Domestic restraints on militarization, only BMD would break them down.
CP to have Japan stop cooperation? Would probably hurt the alliance.
Why does the development have to be done in Japan? Because they’re the only willing partner. The Japanese technology is already in the block 2A missiles, only way to do this.
Neg strats include Relations DA, emboldens NK, some sort of trilateral alliance with Australia.
Block 2A is causing recently heightened tensions.
We don’t get rid of block 1A, but it’s half done, we leave it like that, it’s ineffective.
Look at if it’s “substantial” to stop the development and cooperation while leaving block 1A, other troops, etc. There is some ev about it beind important to change our strategy there.
MO Japan Aff
US Japan alliance aff with many alliance.
Just withdraw from Okinawa.
Most of the BQ strat will work, just cut some extra case specific cards on this.
Iraq
Many policy and critical versions.
Policy versions adhere to SOFA and withdraw according to timetable.
One aff has SC rule it violated CIL. It says internat law good, preemptive war bad.
CP to rule on CIL and don’t withdraw from Iraq.
US-Iran advantage. Withdrawl would pacify Iran, only reason they’re trying to nuclearize is because of Iraq.
Various credibility advantages that increase heg. Soft power. Prevents overstretch. Helps credibility by sticking with timeline.
Iraqi stability advantages. Increase stability because we remove ourselves as a target, and would force Iraq to govern themselves. Most of these end in Iraq civil war/instability.
KL claims democracy promotion.
Article 140 conditions counterplan works. Says key to solve sectarian violence. Other net benefit could be Iraqi politics.
Other counterplans could be to leave some troops in different regions or capacities.
A lot of troops we have there now are going to be in advisory and training roles. You could probably make a credible claim that if you are to withdraw those troops, we’d start using PMCs in those training and advisory roles, which is bad.
If we were to withdraw, would cause Iran to fill in and pressure Iraq.
On stability, if we don’t condition, just results in more instability.
A lot are not reversal causal. Don’t speak to withdrawing now would stop whatever damage the occupation caused.
If the referendum would pass, would screw over Turkey and Iran.
Clash drills
Aaron-Aff on condition CP for Afghanistan
Jessie-Neg on condition CP for Afghanistan
Ryan-Japan Rearm (sort out the sides)
Jack-Japan Rearm (sort out sides)
Hari-Aff Turkey allied prolif
Drew-Neg Turkey allied prolif
Vinay-Heg
Boyd-Heg
Japan Politics
Uniqueness probably overwhelms link.
Link turning is extremely difficult.
Must figure out how to impact turn.
Make a uniqueness wall. Make sure the wall has warrants as a way of distinguishing out his arguments, reason to decide for the neg. Each set of arguments is a quick evaluation of his arguments. Each card should have the warrant emphasized.
July 26
· PoliticsLink work to be done – maybe midterms
An aff section of this file should be put out
· A K of Prolif might be something to do – Is Terror Talk in the file?
· There was a Gender Group – Fem IR, etc
· The compiled file was pretty solid
· Is there an Israel argument in Allied Prolif? There might be in Middle East – but it sounds like there’s not anything in that, either.
· We need stuff on Israel, China, Russia
· PMC Shift
· Redeployment DAs
· Guam has turtles, or something
· Iran DA – attacking them is dumb, international support for sanctions could be better?
· One person could go through the Allied Prolif generic and make it good
· Condition withdrawal on China ending the North Korea nuclear program
Assignments:
· Security – Jesse, Rachel, Jon
· Red Spread/Israel – Tats
· OBJ – Hari
· Drones – Aron
· Domestic Compensation – Malkovich
· Japan – Sullivan, Suo, Vinay
· South Korea Policy – Cara
· Turkey – Ish
· Afghanistan – Jorge, James, Drew
· Iraq – Malkovich, Ryan, Julia
· Kuwait – Jack
· Gender – Priyanka
· Impact Extensions – Carlos
OBJ Stuff
PMCs could be a case turn to this aff
Forward Deployment Good
Taxes are bad
Carlos is doing AT: deontology
Gender (All the Prostitutes and Answers to the Gender K)
Gotta have answers to our ev is biased
Feminist protections of prostitutes
Answers to Moon and third world feminism
These women are doing this out of poverty and choice – not because they’re forced to
The South Korean government is forcing many of the women into poverty
Maybe answers to Gender Language and/or Brinksmanship is Gendered, etc
Rachel vs. Priyanka – clash drill smackdown
Drones
What does this aff do
Is it substantial
Which of these drones are good? We should PIC out of one of them
Carlos wants a PIC out of a word – UAV’s are the term of art
Security K
Prolif K – Jesse doesn’t know what it is.
It’s basically just an orientalism argument
Pos Peace, Terror Talk, Pan K, Chaloupka
All of these should only be spent one or two nights on – just quick files to be put out with aff answers
Carlos vs. James – clash drill
Tatsuro
Israel, Russia, China relations
Red Spread DA
Isreal – Bunker Busters that could own Iran
Clash Drill – Tats vs. Jorge
Compensation Clash Drill: Malkovich vs. Julia
Clash Drill – Iraq Politics DA – Ish vs. Suo
Clash Drill – Japan Politics DA – Sullivan vs. Cara
Afghanistan
What neg positions exist against this aff
Can the strategy in the country work/should we give it a chance?
CP – change the way COIN is used/what the troops do/train the Afghan national army
We need to have a very strong defense of presence and number of troops
Taliban DA – Negotiations
Day 6 July 24 -
Future T
This debate is silly. Only read it against an aff that acts far in the future/
Could apply to theoretical Layne aff that acts then, but probably won’t apply.
Declaration/Secret T
Make argument that it’s normal means-expand upon the congress changing mind when they change their votes, president does the same thing.
Examine the definitions-need substantially? What does it modify? Not resolved
Personnel T
Good example with Iraq, that they wouldn’t just leave all their weapons behind.
What does it mean to be quantifiable? Make a clear distinction.
Reduction on face T
Reduce the presence in Okinawa would increase presence elsewhere.
Can be argued that this is only fx un t.
Also is evidence that indicates it will be reduced elsewhere.
Substantially T
Breadth over year and depth in round is good.
Nukes are largest deterrence, so substantial.
Use deterrence as the definition to narrow it down more, other definitions too broad to allow you to be substantial.
Make argument that substantially as a percent presumes it is quantifiable.
Day 5 July 23 -
T Clash Drills
Ish/Drew
Discussion of presence and the definition of the word in
DA to the Neg Interp: No ground troops or naval troops
T Permutations: Are They Legit?
Priyanka/Sullivan
Is this definition intuitive or not? Military study concludes combat troops aren't presence.
Extra-T to change peacekeeping troops to combat troops?
Carlos/Julia
Does the aff meet? Probably.
Jesse/Suo
Presence discussion - how is it felt
Aron/Ryan
What do PMCs do? How does that make them topical?
Day 4 July 22-
See 1AC section of the wiki to download all 1ACs discussed today.
Friday night and Saturday afternoon lab-Meet in Moore 150 (same building as Filene)
Meets 6:30-10:00 tomorrow
1:30-4:30 on Saturday
Prostitution 1AC
Examine combining advantages-remove the prostitution in general is bad, but say in this instance it’s bad because SK are forcing them in this instance, and while women could make this choice in general, but they’re being forced to make this choice in general
Avoid the tag “Prostitution degrades women as human beings”
There is the intersection, commodofication is the result of race, class, and gender.
Must withdraw all troops, regulation doesn’t solve cards prove. Also, SK feels it’s a required thing to keep troops happy, only way to tell them no means no is with this.
Combine inherency and solvency
What’s the difference between intersectionality and the first advantage?
Intersectionality helps with beating Ks, card about viewing through different lenses
Write it as awareness of colonial overtones provides intersectional perspective. If we make colonialism a focus, split it into two advantages.
Beginnings of the security K should be thrown in here.
Make sure you can describe it as the root of the problem is our presence there, because it helps avoid DA turns the case problems later.
Cut cards on feminist perspectives. Search “strategic essentialism” in the case list, there’s a card that helps it
Look at possible third world feminism args
Afghanistan 1AC
Karzai and instability advantages are very similar.
How can say decentralization good? Morgan makes distinction between violent fragmentation and compartmentalization. Decentralization is more like federalism.
On his own, nobody respects Karzai. He’s insane. When we stop supporting him, he loses his power
This strategy will inevitably fail. Better thing to do is to stop supporting Karzai, and let the local controls become more important. That’s the best hope for stability in this nation.
Decentralization inevitable, but only peaceful if we stop COIN.
Why can’t have COIN adapted to decentralization? Because COIN is all about making elections happen, centralized government. They’re already listening to their local leaders now, we’re just trying to force them to listen to Karzai as well
Look into NATO. Why can’t NATO claim success by saying we’ve won the war?
Need to make sure there are answers to consult NATO if there is a NATO advantage.
There is evidence about out of area operations splitting the alliance. Also is evidence saying Afghanistan is the litmus test for more out of area operations for NATO.
Find out how NATO feels about the plan.
Also look into nation building bad/colonialism. There are cards about social engineering.
There are also lots of PMCs there, possible security problems because of terrorism and groups working for the CIA, take a look.
Japan Policy 1AC
Shorten up the tags.
Some public opposition to Okinawa now. The problem is if the protests spillover to the rest of the protests in Japan, specifically Futenman, the politicians will have to listen to the public. Problem is that they would push the US out of Japan as a whole, we just withdraw from a small section.
Change the aff to make it a pol cap aff. Political capital low now, plan gives him pc, allows him to pass financial reform.
Consultation is the status quo. Plan is result of squo talks, they asked us to leave, we’ve been saying maybe, but now we are withdrawing.
Setting up all of the formal stuff for consultation and taking that time would piss Japan off.
Basically: Find case specific answers to consult.
Japan Critical 1AC
Apply the same level of specificity to this aff.
Why have the whole security scenario? Makes it impossible to make the Brooks/Wolfworth scenario that heg is inevitable.
Because we have a securitized notion of Japan, we ignore the environment, mistreat women. Centered around security being the cause.
Need to make it more specific to Japan. Possibly something about WWII? It has symbolic value because of the bomb, etc.
Search Okinawa in Project Muse. Find some stuff more specific about Japanese securitization.
Get ready to answer the prolif K and allied prolif.
Kuwait 1AC
Find impacts. Oil prices and middle eastern terrorism are possibilities.
Look at oil, Kuwait trying to get away from petrodollars
US impedes Kuwait’s ability to be a democracy in the region.
Also possible plan to prevent Iraqi soldiers from going to Iraq.
Clash Drills Tomorrow
Cannot be combat troops-Iraq not T
Sullivan-Aff
Priyanka-Neg
Must include personnel-Aegis not T
Zach-aff
Jack-neg
In=physically within-Naval exercises in international water
Drew-aff
Ish-neg
Nuclear umbrella-not a military presence, not physical
Michael-aff
Jessie-neg
Must be more than status quo reduction-must be faster than 2011 in Iraq
Julia-aff
Carlos-neg
Future action not T-must reduce now
Rachel-Aff
Jorge-Neg
Has to on face reduce, not ban particular thing
Cara-aff
Jonathan-Neg
Military contractors
Aaron-Aff
Ryan-Neg
Substantially-BMD or Naval
Hari-Aff
James-Neg
Must be a formal action-President can’t just think it
Vinay-aff on resolved is formal policy
Tatsuro-neg on resolved is formal policy
Format is neg aff neg. No 1AR. Disclose tonight.
1. Email Campbell Haynes your 1NC, 2AC, and 2NC
2. Every meet for dinner tomorrow at 5, entire lab at the hop
Day 3 July 21-
Korea Affs:Iraq Aff:
PMCs
Day 2 July 20-
Meet at Kemeny Holdeman tomorrow, right outside Novack
South Korea
Drawdowns in past mean no more, and the US will inevitably get involved. Prostitution could do it. The preemptive war article is good, but assumes Bush, and it’s only one advantage. It says that if we withdraw we’ll have a credible threat of war, and then we’ll be able to have a threat that will force North Korea to denuclearize. Kennelly from the American Enterprise Institute writes this-cut this stuff for the neg.
Maybe instead do withdrawing makes NK more comfortable, and then less likely to be aggressive, more willing to talk, and help the transition to new leadership.
Could have an aff the includes the nuclear umbrella. Go to college wiki and look under Dartmouth, Mich State, and others to find cites for no first use.
Other aff: we sent ships into yellow sea to train SK, but the Chinese don’t like this. However, these might be one time exercises, end before Greenhill.
Kritikal side of things. SK is a unique intersection between colonialism and patriarchy, has prostitution for troops. Need an answer to attempts to regulate soldiers instead of withdraw-object fiat, ineffective regulations. Any econ cards helps with K offense on comodifying women.
BMD
Joint development between US and Japan because Japanese constitution prevents Japan from doing it alone. Fear a country has of missile defense system is that it makes possessor of missile defense invulnerable in first strike situation. Search word presence/present within what is going on here to make it be topical.
Possible neg arg is that military presence reduction requires people, and people are there. Also examine, cooperation with Japan is cooperation in Japan.
Possible interp is that presence=talks/other forms of cooperation. Args against it include it would explode limits by allowing us to change all of our advisory roles.
Do lots of contextual T work, scour T files produced at other institutes. Find something that comes up with the distinction between military presence and military forces.
Iraq
Inherency problem, SOFA agreement, Biden just got back from Iraq a couple of weeks ago and said we’re definitely sticking to the agreement regardless of stability.
Date limit searches, find people saying anything in aff’s direction.
Also start thinking about advantages from ambiguity.
Kuwait
You can’t hear people screaming because of the generators.
They already have progressive women’s rights, not much for fem.
Look into strategic importance of Kuwait and combining that with colonialism.
Also, Kuwait doesn’t want withdrawal of Iraq troops, because it would force refugees into Kuwait and would also free up our troops to go into Kuwait.
Our operations in Yemen are based in Kuwait. Look at possible people could be assassinated.
Also look into the democratization stuff, about US possibly interfering with new democracy.
PMCs
Bad because of idea of privatizing military, possibly capitalist.
Good way of allowing the US to avoid responsibility.
We’ve used PMCs in Iraq to avoid criticism over death tolls.
Privatizing security is bad, creates rich poor gap on who has security.
Look into how much of PMC market we are. If we can withdraw from these 6 countries and then put PMCs out of business, we’ll be able to change the nature of PMCs.
PMCs in violation of Geneva convention because they’re technically civilians, but they are also combatants.
Possibly have Court rule on CIL, argue spillover.
Examine distinction between the people fighting and the people just driving trucks.
Afghanistan
Heg-Overstretch, COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy is based off here.
Corruption-we pay people to allow us to travel, funds warlords.
If we remove just counterinsurgency, our counterterror will fail as well, otherwise we won’t have the intelligence necessary for counterterror because counterinsurgency is in the cities where they gather information.
But ev goes other way too, impedes stability, alienates the people needed to have successful counterterror. Also destroys karzai government, which is bad.
Need to examine the legitimacy and necessity of getting data from counterinsurgency.
Counterinsurgency is about stability, does more than shoot people. Counterterror is about chasing terrorists.
Make sure there is an answer to reducing rather than changing.
Day 1 July 19
Kuwait has to be done - it's on the list.Carlos: Pull out the troops currently stationed at the DMZ. Disad's aren't unique because the US is moving troops around and the advantages could be North-South reconciliation. Plan would remove troops entirely. CP to move them elsewhere in the country may/may not solve - that's an evidence question.
Tats: Pull out counterinsurgency troops (hearts and minds people). Afghani instability, the way we're trying to establish a government, is bad. Nation building in Afghanistan bad.
Zach: Pull Afghan counter narcotic troops. Not doing that drives them into the Taliban.
Julia: Iraq withdrawal as per the Security Agreement. Iraq-U.S. Relations advantage. Necessary to maintain good U.S.-Iraq relations. Withdrawal also good for Iraq stability. Could also be key to an offshore balancing strategy. Is this topical?
Michael: Stop ballistic missile cooperation with Japan. We have troops in Japan and ships with BMD in Japan. Advantages: North Korea, China is mad too. An Alliance Restructuring Advantage is possible. Does South Korea have it too - Yes?
What does removing troops from Kuwait do? Carlos wants a genealogy? Jack has done Kuwait work before - Kuwait can be a lilypad for the rest of the ME. It's key to both land and air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Turkey - If we're doing it, it seems TNWs are the ways to go. Carlos thinks that the US trains a secret police in Turkey.
Nicole - Possible critical aff is the Okinawa base in Japan. Vinay - same aff, but with an Alliance credibility advantage.
James - Remove the nuke aircraft carrier from Japan - relations advantages. James is right.
Carlos - shun Turkey. This aff doesn't work because we can't topically stop trading with them. Maybe this is a neg file.
Korea - 4, Afghan COIN - 7, Iraq - 6, Japan BMD - 6, Turkey - 1, Japan K - 2, Japan Nuke Ship - 1.
One Choice:
Korea - 4, Afghan COIN - 4, Japan BMD - 2, Iraq - 6, Kuwait - 3. PMCs - 1.
Kuwait - Cara and James.
PMCs - Julia.
Okinawa - Jesse and Drew.
Korea - Carlos, Rachel, Ish, Zach.
Afghanistan - Tats, Aaron, Jorge, Hari, Jonathan.
Japan BMD - Vinay and Michael.
Iraq - Jack, Priyanka, Sullivan, and Ryan.
Afghanistan
How does being nice to them create instability?
Supporting Karzai leads to instability. Nation building helps Karzai. Our presence is pointless. Counter terror CAN work without counter insurgency. Advantages - Heg, Improved Stability, Terrorism Advantage?
Iraq
Get out of the country. Flip flop? Very case specific politics work could be done. DA - US troops there protect the Kurds. Shia have power now - if we pulled out it might lead to Shia authoritarianism. Ken thinks advantages might be week.
Korea
North Korea is crazy. Mines exist - can we demine? We want to remove troops from Korea. What does Kim Jong Il want? Where is his power going to go? Could the plan be to end the nuclear guarantee instead of removing troops? Carlos has an interesting idea about hardliners. Lots of ev about us promising not to mess with North Korea.